Com. v. Rosa, S.
Com. v. Rosa, S. No. 969 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Stephen M. Rosa pleaded guilty to robbery on June 4, 2014, and was sentenced to 4–8 years; he did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
- Rosa filed a pro se PCRA petition on December 28, 2015, alleging counsel ineffectiveness and that his plea was induced.
- PCRA counsel was appointed, sought to withdraw after concluding the petition was untimely and meritless, and the court issued a Rule 907 notice proposing dismissal.
- Rosa filed a timely pro se response (prisoner-mailbox rule) contesting counsel’s inducement claim; the PCRA court dismissed the petition on March 11, 2016.
- Rosa appealed; successor PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court independently reviewed the record.
- The Superior Court held Rosa’s petition was untimely under the PCRA time bar, no timeliness exception was pled, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits; counsel’s withdrawal was permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Rosa's Argument | Commonwealth/PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Rosa argued substance claims (ineffective assistance; plea induced); challenged PCRA time bar as unconstitutional/governmental interference | Petition filed >1 year after judgment final; no §9545(b)(1) exceptions pled; time bar is constitutional | Petition untimely; no jurisdiction to reach merits; dismissal affirmed |
| Ability to raise Alleyne claim in PCRA | Rosa contended Alleyne renders sentence illegal | Alleyne relief is available only on direct appeal or timely PCRA | Alleyne claim not available because petition untimely |
| Adequacy of counsel’s Turner/Finley withdrawal procedure | Rosa did not contest in lower court; procedural compliance questioned by court | Counsel conducted record review and notified appellant; substantial compliance with Widgins/Pitts requirements | Withdrawal of counsel granted after independent court review |
| Timeliness exceptions (governmental interference, newly discovered facts, new constitutional right) | Rosa claimed PCRA time bar unconstitutional in appeal; asserted governmental interference in notice of appeal | Exceptions must be pled in PCRA petition and within 60 days of discovery; issues raised first on appeal are waived | Exceptions not pled below and waived; would fail on merits as time limits are constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (establishes PCRA one‑year filing rule and finality calculation)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. Super. 2007) (confirms jurisdictional nature of PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sets out requirements for counsel withdrawal/no‑merit procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (discusses appellate procedures for counsel withdrawal and no‑merit notices)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (issues not raised in PCRA court are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (upholds constitutionality of PCRA time limitations)
- Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne claims must be raised on direct appeal or in a timely PCRA petition)